Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1wGFQU8SfpW2coGLAKx-GLmbvpb1Hv5W_=SZ2HvxR+vaw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 4 October 2017 at 18:13, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
> OK.  And if you want the first one, you can wrap it in a view currently, but
> if it were changed I don't know what you would do if you want the 2nd one
> (other than having every user create their own set of foreign tables).  So I
> guess the current situation is more flexible.

Sounds like it would be a useful option on a Foreign Server to allow
it to run queries as either the invoker or the owner. We have that
choice for functions, so we already have the concept and syntax
available. We could have another default at FDW level that specifies
what the default is for that type of FDW, and if that is not
specified, we keep it like it currently is.

To go further off topic, I'd like to have the invoker vs definer security options available even for plain old views as well.  Sometimes I want create a view so that I can let people see, in a controlled manner, things they couldn't otherwise see.  But more often I just want to provide a convenience wrapper around ugly SQL without accidentally granting people additional privileges.

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a runningbackend
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks